another court claim from DCB L/euro car parks

Superduke

As the title says this relates to a recently received (30/11/24) from DBC L/Euro car parks.

Basically, I am (my vehicle) are alleged to have overstayed (7hrs!!!) in a Euro car parks controlled car park, the alleged transgression taking place 20/02/2020 (nr 5 yrs ago) not sure whether the time scale is relevant or any help at a later stage.

 

So, after reading the extensive and thorough info/advice on MSE I have created an account (this been my first post). And in accordance with said advice I have submitted via MCOL the AOS so I’m now up to date and ready to formulate a defence.

 With this in mind a couple of housekeeping questions, firstly I submitted the AOS 12/11/24 (today) the claim was issued 30/10/24 but there seems to be a 5 day allowance from date of issue to date of service which would mean date of service is 04/11 does this mean I have 28 days from 30/10 ie the original issue date or date of service 04/11 or from 12/11 AOR submission date?

Also re defence I propose to use the online template as a base and insert my own details and adapt to suit my particular situation, when the defence is complete do I submit it directly to the court via email?

And has I’ve no real idea what I’m doing or what a finished defence should look like would it be possible or worthwhile posting a draft (personal details redacted) for the consideration of more experienced eyes?

Any input on my progress and of course any advice on how to continue would be very welcome. Thanks in advance.  

     

 

Gr1pr

They have 6 years to issue a court claim, so 5 years is neither here nor there 

33 days from the issue date, due to doing the AOS in a timely correct manner 

Yes, email to their new dedicated email address, seen in the template defence thread 

ONLY post the paragraphs that you have changed, typically paragraphs 2 & 3 , don't post the rest of the unchanged template defence 

Superduke

Gr1pr said:

They have 6 years to issue a court claim, so 5 years is neither here nor there 

33 days from the issue date, due to doing the AOS in a timely correct manner 

Yes, email to their new dedicated email address, seen in the template defence thread 

ONLY post the paragraphs that you have changed, typically paragraphs 2 & 3 , don't post the rest of the unchanged template defence 

thank you for the responce, just to clarify 33 days from issue would make it Dec 02 or Dec 15 depending whether inclusive or it is work/week days, 

Gr1pr

Days , just days, so add 33 days to the issue date, don't overthink it, Monday the 2nd of December at 4pm is the deadline 

Superduke

Gr1pr said:

Days , just days, so add 33 days to the issue date, don't overthink it, Monday the 2nd of December at 4pm is the deadline 

got it, best to be sure

Coupon-mad

Clearly not working days or it would say that.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Superduke

thank you for the comments and with regard to a timely defence I guess no time like the present.

As i said I'm not familiar with the pdefence rocess or what is really expected, it seems on reading the template it is paragraph 3 where the personalised defence is presented and the rest (while quite extensive) is included unedited. First draft time...

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

3. Despite the time lapsed approx. 5yrs the defendant remembers very well the particular day in question, and can say with total certainty that the defendant nor the vehicle was actually parked in said car park. The fact is the defendant and vehicle travelled through the car park without stopping at all. At approximately 8-45am the defendant visited Ossett post office for the purpose of posting time sensitive commercial packages the am post collection is 9.00am so it is necessary to be there before to that time to ensure collection. The defendant’s vehicle was parked briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park Towngate Ossett. The car park at Towngate Ossett controlled by Euro car parks is a one-way system, entry at the top exist at the bottom the defendant drove through the car park but did not stop entering and existing within a few seconds. Entering the car park presumably triggered a number plate recognition system recording the said entry, the immediate exist of the car park should also have been recorded and time stamped proving the brief time present in the car park.

The defendant revisited the post office with more time sensitive packages at approximately 4-30pm to ensure postal collection at 5pm and prompt delivery. Again, the defendant parked outside the Euro car parks controlled car park Towngate Ossett, and again drove through Towngate carpark without stopping, this second entry /exist should also have been recorded and time stamped. The defendant has driven through Towngate Ossett car park without stopping on numerous occasions has do literally hundreds of other drivers every day.

On receiving the parking charge notice the defendant immediately knew that an error had been made and wrote to Euro car parks explaining the situation, the communication received no response. In order to resolve the matter the defendant sent another letter (letter on file) requesting all data inc photos held by Euro car parks relating to the defendants vehicle, again this communication was ignored. The defendant believes said data would clearly show the multiple visits and not a prolonged single stay. Thereby proving the vehicle was not indeed in breach of the terms on the signs as it was not parked longer than the maximum period allowed so no charges or damages were incurred and as such not payable.  

Thoughts pls

Gr1pr

You haven't added your bit to the end of paragraph 2 

Coupon-mad

Superduke said:

thank you for the comments and with regard to a timely defence I guess no time like the present.

As i said I'm not familiar with the defence process or what is really expected, it seems on reading the template it is paragraph 3 where the personalised defence is presented and the rest (while quite extensive) is included unedited. First draft time...
 
The facts known to the Defendant:
2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.
 
3. Despite the time lapsed approx. 5yrs the defendant remembers very well the particular day in question, and can say with total certainty that the defendant nor the vehicle was actually parked in said car park. The fact is the defendant and vehicle travelled through the car park without stopping at all. At approximately 8-45am the defendant visited Ossett post office for the purpose of posting time sensitive commercial packages the am post collection is 9.00am so it is necessary to be there before to that time to ensure collection. The defendant’s vehicle was parked briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park Towngate Ossett. The car park at Towngate Ossett controlled by Euro car parks is a one-way system, entry at the top exist at the bottom the defendant drove through the car park but did not stop entering and existing within a few seconds. Entering the car park presumably triggered a number plate recognition system recording the said entry, the immediate exist of the car park should also have been recorded and time stamped proving the brief time present in the car park.

The defendant revisited the post office with more time sensitive packages at approximately 4-30pm to ensure postal collection at 5pm and prompt delivery. Again, the defendant parked outside the Euro car parks controlled car park Towngate Ossett, and again drove through Towngate carpark without stopping, this second entry /exist should also have been recorded and time stamped. The defendant has driven through Towngate Ossett car park without stopping on numerous occasions has do literally hundreds of other drivers every day.

On receiving the parking charge notice the defendant immediately knew that an error had been made and wrote to Euro car parks explaining the situation, the communication received no response. In order to resolve the matter the defendant sent another letter (letter on file) requesting all data inc photos held by Euro car parks relating to the defendants vehicle, again this communication was ignored. The defendant believes said data would clearly show the multiple visits and not a prolonged single stay. Thereby proving the vehicle was not indeed in breach of the terms on the signs as it was not parked longer than the maximum period allowed so no charges or damages were incurred and as such not payable.  

You need to talk about 'double dips'.

I grabbed & adapted this from a forum search:

The Defendant finds it utterly bizarre that despite these facts - and their knowledge of the various Codes of Practice ('CoP'), which all include reference to operators' duty to avoid unfair 'double dipping' PCNs - that they are still pursuing this case. The practice known as 'double dipping' is a very common ANPR flaw. Clause 21.3 of the BPA CoP in 2020 says: 

''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.'' 

The BPA even produced an article, several years ago, warning operators about this ANPR flaw:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/anar

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use. Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur."

This Claimant has not bothered to look for what the ANPR parking industry call 'orphan images' of the two additional photographs, showing the car exiting the car park after the first visit, then later returning. This means that the DVLA data was obtained 'without reasonable cause' because this was not a single parking event. Clearly they have not fully reviewed the ANPR images and have themselves committed an offence under the Data Protection Act 2018 by wrongfully acquiring details from the DVLA when relying on unchecked, inaccurate data. The system has automatically harvested DVLA data illegally.  The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of all camera captures of this vehicle in that period, within the boundaries of the site.  This is not the Defendant's burden. It remains the Claimant's claim to prove, with all data images they hold. 

Superduke

Gr1pr said:

You haven't added your bit to the end of paragraph 2 

Forgive my stupidity but what do I add ?